Stay safe, God bless :)

Be SAFE.

God Bless,
Sandra

Of course, I doubt you had a choice as to your exact destination once you signed up. I have enjoyed reading you blog, as it’s a witty and detailed depiction of day-to-day life for the soldiers there. I’ve got a niece at TQ repairing crypto gear, and your reference to that base is how I found your site. As for a soldier’s political opinions, I hope you’ll look to the views of Pat Tillman as a reasoned and realistic assessment.

I think you should take a look at the annual Patterns of Global Terrorism reports in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. They talk about Iraq’s ties to terrorism, including it’s ties to Al-Qaeda. Specifically the 2002 report, where the report talks about Iraq harboring a terrorist group headed up by “…Abu Mud’ab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama Bin Ladin and his Al-Qaida lieutenants.” But I am not just talking about Al-Qaeda. Saddam himself “Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to encourage Palestinian terrorism”. The list of groups Iraq has supported is pretty extensive, it is much to large to put everything in here.

I don’t think that it really matters whether or not Saddam had WMDs, but I will say that he had ample time to get rid of anything he might have had and I personally believe that he did have them. Furthermore, according to the recently discovered recordings, Saddam was at least working to develop them.

But I really don’t care if he had WMDs or not. The man was evil, he killed thousands of his own people, his regime had been a major sponsor of terrorism and he did have and used Chemical weapons (those aren’t dangerous?). Even if he was not a threat to the US, the man needed to be removed from power.

I know you are probably much older than I am, and I hope I am not being disrespectful. I am not very good at putting my political views out there, so you will have to excuse me. I could be wrong too, and I am always open to hearing other views, but that is the way I see it.

“Let’s play a little game called ‘Who Can Kill Who First?’…just for a second…just to see how it feels.”

Resolution 1441 from the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency! Does anyone remember that one?

Speaking of Resolution 1441, doesn’t the tape descovered in Feb kinda further prove that Iraq did not provide
“an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles”.? I haven’t heard anyone say much about the tape on the news.

Re: Rapture…I remember Afghanistan as I, and many others, have adopted Soldiers just coming home and more still there. In fact I found this blog through one of those Soldiers.

What is the “tape discovered in February” and what is its relevance? As for Resolution 1441, although Iraq’s documentation was not complete, inspectors had unrestricted access to the country for 2 1/2 months and found nothing but a few leftover casings. Now maybe you’re saying that war was justified because of sloppy paperwork, regardless if whether anything was there to be found (obviously there wasn’t).

There were also a large number of indications at the time that there were no WMD programs. For example, as reported in “State of War” by James Risen, the CIA asked 30 relatives of Iraqi WMD scientists and technicians to visit Iraq in 2002 and ask their relatives about the program. All 30 reported that their relatives claimed the programs had all ended years before, and they knew of no current program. Of course, Slayer says he doesn’t care about WMD’s or whether Saddam was a threat to us. If there’s no threat, why is it worth 2500 lives, 7500 crippled, and $400 billion plus?

Midnight, you’re justifiably enraged at Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So do you think it was a good idea to replace a secular dictatorship that brutally suppressed Islamists with a chaotic free-for-all where terrorism is not only flourishing, but slowly prevailing?

Incidentally, it’s not because of our “way of life and our religous beliefs” that they’re attacking, but because they want us out of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or other fairly specific goals. Otherwise, they’d be going after other Western Christian countries like Sweden or Canada. And they do seem to kill a lot of Muslims as well.

“Midnight, you’re justifiably enraged at Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So do you think it was a good idea to replace a secular dictatorship that brutally suppressed Islamists with a chaotic free-for-all where terrorism is not only flourishing, but slowly prevailing?”

What a jump you just made there, DougS! What kind of logic is that? The Lt. explained why he joined the service and you are all of a sudden asking him if it’s better to have a dictator or a “chaotic free-for-all” where terrorism is getting stronger. It sounds to me like you are trying to divert a good answer with a bad question.

That logic is kind of like me saying “You seem opposed to the allied presence in Iraq, DougS. I’ve never met a traitor that hates America as much as you! Do you prefer freedom fries or french fries?”

Come on.

The Lt. plainly stated why he wanted to join the Marines (i.e. to protect his loved ones from people that want to kill his loved ones). Religious Muslim Extremists are the people who attacked America on 9-11. Those are the same people that the Lt. wants to bring to justice. That’s why he entered the Marines. That’s why he is a patriot - a patriot tha tis putting his life on the line to defend your country and your freedoms - including your freedom to speech. And you pay him back by asking him such a bad question that isn’t connected to his simple answer.

By the way, you say terrorism is prevailing.

So, I’m curious.

What is the score? Where are the stats that show that terrorism is prevailing? Is it lives lost per country, sect, religious group? Is it helicopters crashed versus white Toyota trucks bombed? Is it news reports from CNN vs MSNBC vs FOX? How do you know terrorism is prevailing? What’s your metric? You must have a metric to be able to determine the direction that terrorism is heading. Is it proportional to your memory span?

Also:

Have you talked to any of the women in Afghanistan that are now able to learn how to read?

Have you noticed that women in Afghanistan are now able to have a little bit of a status in society now?

Have you noticed that they have voted in recent elections?

Have you noticed that the allied forces have disrupted Al Qaeda terrorist training camps that called Afghanistan home?

Are you still reading?

Have you noticed that there are fewer people on the planet that want you, your family, and your friends dead?

Have you noticed that they have called you an infidel, a heathen, and that they believe you should die?

It doesn’t get reported in the news much, so maybe you haven’t noticed.

You seem focused on Iraq. You seem focused on the bad news that comes out of Iraq (you seem to say the same old (bad) news that we’ve all heard before). You seem focused on the words of Osama Bin Laden and seem to take his word as truth (in your statement you made by Osama about Iraq) as opposed to taking the word of the countries of the UN security counsel. You are quoting OBL when he says something you like and yet OBL gets on air and tells you he wants to kill you. Why aren’t you quoting that?

DougS,

First of all, the fact that Saddam was harboring and supporting terrorism against the US and it’s allies makes him a threat. But even if he had shown no hostility towards the US and was not a threat to us in particular, he was to our allies and surrounding nations. He needed to be removed from power and the world is better off without him.

Now, unless you are being sarcastic in some way I neither recognize nor understand, I will tell you about the tapes that were discovered or at least released to the public in Feb. I am not surprised you haven’t heard about them, I think I only heard the main stream media report on them once. In these 12 hours of recordings, Saddam talks about acquiring WMDs and also talks about terrorism coming to the US, but not from Iraq. Hmm, I wonder how he knew that? You can read about them in just about any online news media.

“it’s not because of our ‘way of life and our religious beliefs’ that they’re attacking”?!?!
How can you say that?!?! They didn’t suddenly start preaching hatred towards America when we invaded! They have been doing so for a long, long time! They hate America and what it stands for… Freedom and Democracy! They call us “infidels”, which means “someone who does not believe in a particular religion.”

They attacked the “WORLD Trade Center” think about that… it wasn’t only Americans who got killed. Also, last time I checked, Great Britain and Spain have also been attacked since then. Sweden and Canada? Sweden lost people on 9/11, but has not been very strong in condemning terrorist activities since then. Canada, who also suffered losses on 9/11, is really the only one of the two has been very strong in their support. BTW, Canada has been one of our strongest supporters in Iraq, in 2003 they had about 1,900 troops over there.

“a chaotic free-for-all where terrorism is not only flourishing, but slowly prevailing?” Terrorism is by no means prevailing! They cannot win in Iraq. But their goal is to cause the American and Iraqi people to say “OH, its chaotic, they are prevailing”, that is exactly what they want us to say, hoping that we will give up… we cannot give up! The question is not can we win, the question is how long will it take, and it may take a while. Terrorism is a global problem, and that is what we are fighting, a GLOBAL problem.

There are good things being done, we are making a better world for the people over there. If the main stream media would report more of the good things, instead of focusing on the bad, than we would be done much quicker.

I’m tired, up way to late, I hope my writing is readable. :)

If you look at my post, I am clearly referring to Iraq when I talked about terrorism prevailing. Afghanistan was a completely justifiable war, and I’m happy with most of the results. After all, it was a fundamentalist, repressive terror-exporting state when we invaded, so we could hardly have made it worse. Most of the remaining problems there (remaining Taliban, resurgent drug trade) are a direct result of the diversion of most of our resources and our attention to Iraq, and our reluctance to confront Pakistan over their refusal to crack down on the tribal area safe havens. So we all agree on Afghanistan.

I’m “focused” on Iraq because that’s where 90% of the troops and the resources are going, and in most ways the country is not better off for it. In Saddam’s Iraq, violence was fairly predictable - if you didn’t get involved in politics, you were fairly safe (at least in the past 12 years), and street crime was nearly nonexistent. Was it a nice place? NO.

But there are worse things than a dictatorship. Dozens of people dying each day from car bombs, a general decline in living standards including health and electricity, mass kidnappings, and general chaos might arguably qualify. It’s easy to smash things, like the weak Iraqi state, but hard to put something in its place. Especially if you have no plan beforehand to do so.

So my “logic” which you find impossible to understand, is to ask whether the above results were worth the immense effort and lives we have poured into this. Sounds like a simple yes or no. And if yes, why? We lived with a prostrate, impotent Iraq for 12 years - what justified the sudden urgency?

Slayer, you have an interesting technique where you make a claim, then in the next sentence say it doesn’t matter if the claim is true. For example, you say even Saddam was “harboring and supporting terrorism against the US and it’s allies” without citing evidence or examples. Then you abandon that as a reason anyway, that even if he “was not a threat to us” he “needed to be removed from power”. All I’m asking is, if he wasn’t a threat to us (and since there’d been no gencodial acts in 12 years) why was it so important to start a war that has cost us so greatly?

And no, I’m not being sarcastic, I don’t know what tapes you’re talking about. Why don’t you provide a link so I can check it out for myself?

I’d also be careful about lumping “they” together. Again, there were no acts of terrorism originating from Iraq in at least 10 years. I don’t know why the terrorists would hate “freedom and democracy” - in Iraq, it’s given them everything they could want.

Wow, when I said that you could find them on any internet media site… I was wrong. I figured you would be able to, but I have had the hardest time finding a report from a major media source. I hope this works :)… [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185029,00.html[/url], this is a report on the 12 hours of recordings. I googled the subject, and there were quite a few results, but they were mostly from blogs and stuff. I didn’t want to give you something with a bias, I figured fox would be the safest course. Hope that gets you there.

Now, as to Iraq being a threat. Again, I say that the fact that they supported terrorism and various terrorist groups, trained them about biological and chemical weapons and paid terrorists, in my opinion, makes him a threat. I also believe that he did have WMDs leading up to the inspections by the UN. But he had plenty of time to d whatever he wanted to with them, while they were not co-operating with the inspections.

Also, (I’m sorry if I am not making sense, or am confusing you. Its probably my fault. I will try to be clear.) WMDs or not, whether he was able to attack the US in particular or not, he WAS a threat to our allies and surrounding nations, through the terrorism he was supporting and the weapons that he did have (not necessarily WMDs). The acts may not have come directly from Iraq, but he was supporting them.

Sry, if I am unclear. I sometimes have trouble taking what I am thinking and writing it in an understandable way.

Gosh, I gotta go.

Ok, a couple of thoughts.

DougS,

You say that “if you didn’t get involved in politics, you were fairly safe.” Well, as long as you didn’t oppose Hitler and you weren’t Jewish, than you were okay there too. I don’t mean to diminish the demonic acts of Hitler by comparing them to the acts of Saddam in any way. Although, Saddam has done some pretty horrible stuff himself.

I do not believe that the radical islamists hate our freedom and democracy simply for the sake of doing so. But I do think that other, past and present things that they associate with our democracy and freedom (perhaps our association with Israel for instance), has bred a hatred for freedom itself. That is what I think personally.

Those are just a couple of after thoughts that I was not able to get to before.

The Hitler analogy is fairly accurate - non-Jewish Germans had little to fear (at least until the war started) as long as they stayed out of politics. Both states were set up on broadly similar lines, and were reasonably popular until the setbacks of war. Which goes to show what evil a majority can be persuaded to go along with.

The reasons I’m skeptical about the supposed terrorist connection is that 1) there’s no evidence of significant terrorist sponsorship and 2) dictators do not generally brook rival organizations. If you make allegations that Saddam supported terrorism, you have to back it up with specifics. The only ones I know about are the retired terrorist in Baghdad (who Saddam had shot in the head) and the supposed payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. I don’t consider these sufficient cause to inflict Iraq on ourselves, especially since the latter was Israel’s concern, not ours. Making blanket charges without evidence is a waste of time.

As for the radical Islamists, I find them a lot scarier than Saddam because, as diffuse stateless groups, they have a lot less to lose. That’s why I don’t know why anyone would be eager to remove a dictator that suppressed them, without enough troops to prevent the power vacuum that allows them to flourish. It’s not that it was wrong to remove Saddam - it’s removing him without a workable plan of what to do next. That’s what Bush’s dad knew.

If I understand this correctly, Saddam has had some pretty strong ties with terrorism. If the stuff in this document is indeed true, than I think that it is pretty significant evidence.

Also, if it were up to me, I would take out any leader who kills hundreds of thousands of his own people. I know Saddam is not the only dictator to suppress his people, and if I am correct, he has not committed as many atrocities as some. I would be taking out these other evil dictators too. I guess I wouldn’t be a very good president.

You may casually throw off that you’d overthrow any murderous dictator, but remember that you’re then responsible for that country. With what army do you propose to do this? Do you understand that you may actually make matters worse? If you go in alone, without the support of the Security Council, it becomes your problem alone. If you go in with support, as in Bosnia, you get help and your action takes on legitimacy.

If Bush Sr. had intervened to stop the slaughter of Kurds and Shiites in 1991, his action would have been legitimate under international law. But those killings were over 12 years before we attacked, and now the death rate under our occupation is far higher than the last years of Saddam’s rule. There is a reason the international system discourages unilateral armed attack - it’s called the rule of law, something this President thinks he’s above.

Actually, he does mention the fact that the camp was outside Saddam’s area of control. “Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein’s controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safehaven in the region.” Granted, the later statement does not prove that Saddam’s regime necessarily had anything to do with it. But it is rather disconcerting.

Sometimes you have to do what you may believe is right, even when no one else will support you. The president did not break any law. I do not want argue over what was in President Bush’s mind when he decided to invade, but I do believe he did what he believed was right, and there were nations who supported us, security council or no.

I wish President Bush Sr. had removed Saddam, or President Clinton for that matter, and I understand that it was 12 years ago, but Iraq was unfinished business. I am glad we went in.

The fact remains that we are in Iraq and we can’t roll back time. We can however, support our troops and our president in finishing what we have started.

If someone has made a terrible decision, and refuses to admit error, hold people responsible, and change course, why should you support him? Do not equate supporting our troops with supporting the policy. I have a niece over there, and it is not the troops fault that this happened. One man decided to start a war, simple as that.

I’d like to know what price you think this was worth. If there was no WMD, no terrorist connection, and no threat, you tell me how much $ and how many lives it’s worth to you to remove “unfinished business”.

Andrew McCarthy (a former chief assistant U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others) points out that the above statement is “internally inconsistant” and “ambiguously worded.” It cannot be both true that the sudaneise arranged contacts between Iraq and UBL and that no “ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq.” As he says, if the first proposition is true, then the “[t]wo senior Bin Laden associates” who are the sources of the second are either lying or misinformed.

Mr. McCarthy also notes:
“In light of the number of elementary things the commission staff tells us its investigation has been unable to clarify (for example, in the very next sentence after the Iraq paragraph, the staff explains that the question whether al Qaeda had any connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the 1995 plot to blow U.S. airliners out of the sky “remains a matter of substantial uncertainty”), it is fair to conclude that these two senior bin Laden associates may not be the most cooperative, reliable fellows in town regarding what bin Laden was actually up to. Moreover, we know from press reports and the administration’s own statements about the many al Qaeda operatives it has captured since 9/11 that the government is talking to more than just two of bin Laden’s top operatives. That begs the questions: Have we really only asked two of them about Iraq? If not, what did the other detainees say?”

What about a letter written by CIA director George Tenet to congress on October, 7, 2002. In which he says:
“Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military.”
Tenet has not backed off from or retracted this statement. Is the commission saying that Tenet provided faulty information?

I personally do not think that the 9/11 commission was as thorough as they claim to be. Therefore, I still think that there is truth in Collin Powell’s speech to the UN as it pertains to Iraq’s relationship with Al Qaeda.

I do not believe that the President made a “terrible decision”, so I do support him. I am not equating supporting the troops with agreeing with the policy. I do not have problems with people disagreeing with the decision of our president, but I do have problems with people trying to undermine his efforts after the decision has been made.

Regardless of your belief on whether we should be there or not, to pull out before we are finished there would be catastrophic. We must finish what we have started.

Putting Al Qaeda aside, Iraq has sponsored a long list of terrorist groups. Granted, these have not necessarily attacked the US, but they are terrorist groups none the less and we are at war against terrorism. The president made it clear that if you sponsor terrorism than you are an enemy of US. It is no secret that Iraq has been a major sponsor of terrorism.

That’s not what Colin Powell thinks:

Jan. 8, 2004: Secretary of State Colin L. Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no “smoking gun” proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda. “I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,” Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference.

3 April, 2004 (BBC) - US Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that evidence he submitted to the United Nations to justify war on Iraq may have been wrong. In February last year he told the UN Security Council that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories for making biological weapons. On Friday he conceded that information “appears not to be… that solid”.

Or Bush or Blair:

News conference, 31 Jan 2003: One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can’t make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

Or British Intelligence:

The British Broadcasting Company reported on Feb. 5, again before Powell’s UNSC speech, that “There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News. The classified document, written by defence intelligence staff three weeks ago, says there has been contact between the two in the past. But it assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies.

But of course you’d rather believe George “It’s a slam dunk!” Tenet who took the blame to save his President. You really are determined to go to extraordinary lengths to justify this.

My previous posts were devoted to showing why I do not have much faith in the 9/11 commission. I do not believe I am going to extraordinary lengths to justify the invasion, nor do I have to. Also, that news conference with Bush and Blair was before the speech to the UNSC, let alone before we invaded.

There is no doubt in my mind or in anyone’s for that matter, that Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism. Regardless of whether there is a “smoking gun”, I still think there is evidence that indicates that Iraq had ties with Al Qaeda.

Having said that, when we invaded, based on the intelligence we had, most everyone thought that there was a connection and most everyone thought he had WMDs. You can say whatever you want to now, but the invasion was justified based on what we knew then.

What are we supposed to do? Wait until the terrorists drop a bomb and kill a bunch of people, then brag about it and say “It was all us, we planned it all in Saddam’s bedroom, he even signed his name on the bomb we dropped. Come and get us!” Now I know that is rediculous, but seriously, we can’t wait until they hit us to go after them. If we suspect something we have to act. The fact that Iraq would not cooperate with the UN inspections raises a whole lot of red flags.

What do I think it is worth? Well, what is our safety and security worth? What is our freedom worth? What is Iraq’s freedom worth? Do I think these things are worth the lives of our men and women in the armed forces, yes I do. What did our founding fathers believe freedom was worth? A whole lot of lives have been lost for our freedom and we seemed to believe it was worth it, I think Iraq’s freedom is worth it too. By invading Iraq, we were not only ensuring our safety and the safety of the world, but we were also liberating a people from a horrible dictatorship, yes many lives have been lost, but how many lives have we saved by doing that?

I don’t think we are ever going to agree on these things, because our basis of thinking is different. We are going to draw different conclusions no matter what. However, I am enjoying reading your take on the matter.